Pirated Software - when is it okay?

[LesStrat]

[Reload in 5]

nice use of big words to try and make yourself look smart. Was kind of klunky, but whatever.

The problem I pose is seen as one of moral relativisms biggests flaws. To simply ignore it is the only way to defend it. It is also one of the reasons why many if not most philosophers see moral relativism as a dead end.

but lets ignore that fact.
lets just judge your beliefs by the statements you have made. You said your beliefs are no more valid than mine.
So say you believed that stealing was ok, and I believed it was wrong.
If you steal from me have you done anything wrong? You don't believe you have but I believe you did. we can't both be right. If you are right, that means I am wrong, and it means your beliefs are more valid than mine. if I am right, then you are wrong, and my beliefs are more valid than yours. Either way moral relativism fails.

if you figure out how to defend this argument with something more than saying I don't understand it, or saying that it is rubbish, then let me know. If you claim I don't understand then maybe you should explain, because I try to be too logical, and logically moral relativism can't work.

[Reload in 5]

Honestly, i just want to know what your philosophy education is.

that's obviously because you have no defense against my argument.
Here is an article written by a PhD in philosophy. if you want to claim to understand philosophy better than a college professor, go ahead.
http://www.chsbs.cmich.edu/Robert_No...relativism.htm

[Reload in 5]

Still not going to tell me what your education in this matter is then?

It would take you 5 seconds to type.

nope. still wailing for you to provide a single defense for a problem that you state is elementary.
and I have a PhD in philophy that agrees with me. Are your credentials better than that?

[That90'sGuy]

And this otherwise good thread will be locked in 3....2.....1.....

[LesStrat]

[crusty philtrum]

I'm very interested in the chair. Where can I buy one ?

[GoldenVulture]

[LesStrat]

I prefer ninja software.

Ninja>pirate

[Reload in 5]

You have a no-name philosophy teacher of no reknown who's written an article where Jerry Springer is referenced (but no real philosophers or philosophy work quoted or refered to), that is in line with what you think, and that's it?

It seemed from the start that you have no idea what moral perspectivism is. It's seemed also that you know very little about moral philosophy. At a minimum, you appear that way... i was hoping you had some sort of education in the matter that i could sort of take as evidence you were going somewhere with this, i was hoping you could provide me with references to reknowned philosophers who seem to think what you're talking about is one of the biggest criticisms of moral relativism as you say it is (instead all you provide is some amateur article by an unknown). I was more than willing to comment on what you said, i was just hoping that you would back up what you were saying so that i had something to go on... really, honestly, i felt like a scientist would feel if someone started arguing about a flat earth to them.

For what it's worth, i disagree with a number of premises in Dr Noodles article. Primarily, that moral relativists consider differing moral values as all being 'true' in the sense that Dr Noddy is claiming. Generally, moral relativists would focus on the equal 'untruth' of each moral value and would vehemently deny any of them are 'absolute truths'. The suggestion that moral relativists hold that two opposing moral values are both true (in that sense) is a fallacy and not something put forth by any major philosopher i have seen. As i said, if this is the way you are attacking moral perspectivism in particular, but even moral relativism... then that creates the impression that you don't know what those things are. You simply can't attack a relativist philosophy on absolutist grounds because they define 'truth' in a different way, so using an argument like "If John says stealing is immoral, and Jim says it's moral, they can't both be right" does not even make any sense in this context because moral relativists wouldn't hold the 'truth' of John & Jim's positions in the same regard as the way an absolutist would do so. I mentioned 'scope' earlier, and what i mean by that is that 'moral relativism' refers to relativism about morals, and NOT about epistemology... the scope of the relativism does not extend to epistemology, it is limited only to morals.

I likenned it to having a view on musical taste but shall provide a slightly different analogy. My view is like saying that a person could hold the stance that all opinions on musical taste are subjective... the view that one person has which holds Elvis was the greatest solo artist ever, and the view that another might have that Eminem was the greatest... whilst not also holding the stance that every matter under the sun is a subjective matter and so they might think that matters of meta-physics are objective (they might, for example, be christian and believe 'god created the earth' is an absolute truth).

The suggestion that you are Dr Noggles are putting forth then, falls short because it ignores the scope and context of moral relativism. It takes the fact that moral relativists consider moral values to be equal, then it moves outside the scope of moral relativism to apply absolutist standards of truth (which is an epistemological issue, not a moral one) in it's criticism.

I hope that serves as a response to your original comment.

One more thing, you are probably aware... being as studied as you mysteriously are... that it is common in philosophy as with other subjects for there to be reputable views on both sides of the fence, and indeed there are still many reputable absolutists as well as relativists. Providing an online article that has no references or reference to any ongoing philosophical debate in academia and written by an unreknowned writer fails to do a few things... firstly, it fails to show that the matter you raise is even considered relevant in the world of academia and therefore fails to counter my assertion that it's generally considered a non-issue. Secondly, it fails to show that this argument would even by thought of as worthwhile... i would have thought the issue would be talked about by more reknowned philosophers if it were really a strong argument at all. Going along with a 'I've got a PhD man backing me up... you don't have a PhD so you're wrong' kind of argument is just childish and silly. I'm sure there are lots of PhD people who have expressed in writing, views that would be rubbished by the leaders of their field... it's not like a mere PhD means that a person has anything worthwhile to say. For the record, i do not have a PhD in philosophy, but i did a philosophy degree and wrote extensively on Nietzsche and his perspectivism.

Now that i've responded to your comment, do you care to tell me what education you have in philosophy? And what REKNOWNED or MAJOR philosophers support the stance of Dr Noggles and yourself that this issue is one of the biggest criticisms of moral relativism?

Mattt, this is your best thought out post yet. Thanks. I never implied that I had an education in philosophy, merely that I had studied it. And honestly I could tell you I have a PhD and it wouldn't matter, as neither of us could prove otherwise. Most of what I have studied was written by moral absolutists, and most of them agree that this is a problem with moral relativism.

Here's my problem. You say that moral relativism doesn't deal with truth. That's fine. But morals at their root are about what is right and what is wrong. My question about whether you had done something wrong was a question of morals. I didn't ask about breaking the law or anything else.
If my morals say you did something wrong by stealing, do I attempt to recover my item? Or do I just accept that you believe you did nothing wrong and let it go, thus undermining my own beliefs?

[GoldenVulture]

So how do you feel about people who don't want to pay traffic camera fines because " It's just revenue raising! " ?

[verbotenco]

Don't have anything better to do than dwelling on the forum? I shut up and buy pirated software, that defines my position with regard to the original question of this thread.

[stratobastard]

Don't have anything better to do than dwelling on the forum? I shut up and buy pirated software, that defines my position with regard to the original question of this thread.

U never answered GV's question!

[GoldenVulture]

U never answered GV's question!

That was directed at Mattt, but neither did he.










































































yet...

[stratobastard]

I'm very interested in the chair. Where can I buy one ?

You're not going to lay the $$ out for an original, are u?

[LesStrat]

[GuitarStv]

I'm very interested in the chair. Where can I buy one ?

I'm cranking out my pirate chairs as quickly as I can 'steal' them out of my own lumber and hard work. Orders must be placed two years in advance.

[LesStrat]

There's a ninja in that chair!

[ImmortalSix]

well said

[Reload in 5]

The issue of worth is of the most importance here. Perspectivism is commonly held in other areas by many people so perhaps an analogy would help you understand it... i know that there exist postage stamps that cost many millions of dollars and are regularly bought and sold at that rate by collectors all over the world. I know that from the perspective of the stamp enthusiast... those stamps are worth over a million dollars each and that is a fair price and good value, but this is not my view. I would never under any circumstances pay that amount even if i had the money. In my strongly held view that the stamps are not valuable... i do not have to deny that the stamp collectors view is a valid one. I would instead hold the view that my position is correct 'from my perspective' and his position is correct from 'his perspective'. Each view is equally true and equally untrue... but what's important is that NEITHER of them is absolutely true or absolutely false.

While I do understand your point, I feel the need to say that the monetary value of an item is whatever someone is willing to pay for it. So those stamps are worth whatever someone will pay for them, and your beliefs cant change that, even if they arent worth that TO YOU.

Perspectivism differs from relativism in that relativists place no bias on the individuals view, and thus it is easy for it to become moral nilihism. Whilst moral relativists might say "Neither my morals nor yours are absolutely truth, our stances are equal in their truth value" a perspectivist would say "My morals are more true to me than yours are, and your morals are more true to you than mine are, and neither are absolute". In this way, it avoids nihilism because it provides a foundation for meaning and a value system.

And that where you should have started. When you stated that your views were no more valid than others, that is a moral relativists view (just as you have defined here) and that would require you to accept the other view as being just as valid as yours.
Your definition of perspectivism here (and thats pretty much all I have to go on since I do not know much at all about perspectivism) doesn't state that at all. You believe that your morals are more true than others, even if only to you. You do not accept that others views are as valid as yours, but simply accept that their values are different, and are valid to them.
While I do think there could/would still be issues with this belief system, it does indeed avoid the flaw in moral relativism I was pointing out. While perspectivism may be grounded in moral relativism, the distinction you just pointed out is a pretty big one.

Perspectivism (as you have defined it) is more like the way we view the law of a country. Even if something may be illegal here, we accept that it may not be illegal in other countries. We don't have to agree with it, just accept that it is or isn't illegal.

Back to the original post.
He asked if stealing a vst/plugin/daw was OK. This is in the context of a first world country, with people that are not poor

I say that in this context, it is never OK.